Eastview Residential Home

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires Improvement. This meant the management and leadership was inconsistent. Leaders and the culture they created did not always support the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care.

This service scored 61 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider did not have a clear shared vision, strategy and culture which was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, and engagement. The vision and values for Eastview were not clearly communicated to staff. Staff felt that their ideas, and those of the registered manager were not supported by the owner. One staff member said

''[Registered manager] is held back and isn’t given the funding and the things needed. [Registered manager] does their best with what they have got quite frankly.’' This view was echoed by other staff we spoke to. This meant that a lot of systems and processes used were in need of modernisation in line with best practice across the sector.

Not all leaders understood the context in which the provider delivered care, treatment and support. They did not always embody the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders did not always have the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively, or they did not always do so with integrity, openness and honesty. The owner and provider had little oversight. They were unable to provide any provider reports or audits to demonstrate they were overseeing the work of the leadership team. We requested supervision and appraisal of the registered manager; one basic supervision had occurred in the last 12 months. This meant that there was little formal opportunity for the registered manager to share concerns, professionally develop or feel supported within their role.

The provider had relied heavily on internal promotion rather than advertising and recruiting externally into the management team. This meant that the management teams experience of the wider social care system was limited and the provider wasn't benefitting from the knowledge and skills of external candidates.

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard. People, relatives and staff told us that when they had an issue the management team listened and acted on what they said. A relative said, ''Staff all very approachable and I can ask them anything.” One staff member told us, ''[Registered] manager is very approachable and is amazing at what they do, I can come to them about work or even things that have nothing to do with work and they are still there to support me in everything I do and they give the best advice when it’s needed.’’ This meant there was a culture of openness and honesty that staff, people and relatives felt supported by.

The registered manager valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them. The registered manager recognised the different skills of the staff team and valued their contribution to ensuring the home was a safe and caring place to live. Staff told us they were well supported.

The provider did not have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They did not act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, or share this securely with others when appropriate. The provider had systems in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service; however, these were not sufficiently effective in identifying and addressing concerns. Audits had not identified several issues found during the inspection, including concerns relating to fixtures and fittings, food labelling, emergency exit signage, medicines administration records (MARs) and window restrictors. In addition, medication audits completed in 2025 and 2026 contained very similar findings, providing limited evidence of critical review or ongoing evaluation. As a result, the provider could not be assured that governance systems were operating effectively to identify risks, drive improvement and maintain oversight of the service.

The new provider supported the service on a voluntary basis and lacked sector skills or experience. This arrangement was not sustainable in the long term and placed the service at risk. There was no effective senior leadership structure to provide the management and staff teams with the support they needed. As a result, the management team was unable to drive the changes needed to modernise systems and processes in line with current best practice across the sector.

The manager told us that the provider was always available for support however the only formal recording of oversight from the provider was a monthly manager meeting. We asked for meeting minutes as part of our inspection. They included a list of attendees and a few bullet points. No shared learning was recorded and no actions documented.

The provider had a business continuity plan in place, but this did not cover how the business would operate if the registered manager/nominated individual was away from the business for any length of time. As a result, there was a risk that leadership responsibilities and key operational arrangements may not be maintained consistently during periods of absence, which could affect the effective oversight and continuity of the service.

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement. The registered manager worked closely alongside the G.P practice, the hospital, the local authority, district nurses and physiotherapist to ensure that people experienced good care and support.

The provider did not always focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. Staff received training and were given the opportunity to progress their career. However, continuous professional development and reflection were not part of supervision. Best practice was not shared through team meetings.

The service improvement plan lacked sufficient detail to effectively drive and monitor improvement. Actions were recorded at a high level, but there was no clear information about what needed to be done, who was responsible for completing actions, or the timescales for achieving them. We found no evidence that the plan was being reviewed regularly to track progress, and there was limited involvement from people, relatives or staff outside of the management team in identifying or prioritising improvements.

As a result, there was a risk that opportunities to improve the quality of the service were not being fully identified, progressed or monitored, and that people were not meaningfully involved in shaping improvements to the care and support they received.